13 Apr 05
Originally posted by NemesioI must apologise in advance for arguing with you. I agree totally with what you say, that it is the symbolism of the act that is important. I'm not entirely sure I agree with that symbolism, but that is neither here nor there. So: I'm sorry.
Absolutely false.
Factual truth is about this world.
Spiritual truth is about the hereafter.
Which does religion focus on?
Read what I wrote above a possible explanation for St John's use of
a different day on the Synoptics?
Obviously, either St John or the Synoptics are wrong since the 'day of'
and the 'day before' Passover are mutuall ...[text shortened]... on that significance,
communicating a spiritual message in his Gospel text.
Nemesio
But. The modern Christian religion is not set up around the symbolism, but around the actual, supposedly factual, events in the Bible. Sure, there are some individuals who can actually, and are willing to, think that agree basically with what you say, and even an occasional church more or less does as well. However, even the most liberal of the organized Christian bodies still seem to adhere to at least a partial factual basis to their religion (a wishy-washy pick-and-choose stance to say the least). This factual. historically based religion is the one which needs an inerrant Gospel, a Gospel that does not exist.
... --- ...
13 Apr 05
Originally posted by MaustrauserThose late dates are ridiculous, and are heavily reliant on there NOT being a God.
Most Biblical scholars agree that the four canonical gospels were written between 70 and 100 AD.
Matthew 70 - 100 AD
Mark 68 - 73 AD
Luke 80 -100 AD
John 90 -110 AD
And with both Matthew and Luke being more or less copies of Mark.
My question to our RHP Biblical scholars is this. Why do fundamentalists accept testimony written between forty ...[text shortened]... ese gospels were divinely inspired and therefore inerrant, why are they sometimes contradictory?
The most glaring fact that makes a date later than 70 AD for at least the first 3 Gospels highly unlikely is the Temple and Jerusalem being destroyed by the Romans. Jesus had prophesied that the Temple would be destroyed, and the authors wouldn't include that He had been right???
Scholars have a vested and critical interest in the dates being further away from Jesus' death, so that it makes it less likely the events could be checked by believers. However, all of the authors write as if Jerusalem still existed at the time of the writing, and even John speaks about the Temple priests "still saying [this lie] to that day".
There is not one shred of proof that the Gospels were written that late, and abundant proof that they were written earlier. As usual, secular scholars distort facts to avoid God.
There are no contradictions. If you read the Bible objectively and not LOOKING for contradictions, you would see this. Contradiction means mutually exclusive, and that is not present anywhere in the Bible.
13 Apr 05
Originally posted by NemesioThat is ridiculious, Nemesio.
St John's Gospel has the latest date because of its advanced
theological position. Whereas St Mark's Gospel speaks of things in
a very matter-of-fact fashion -- Jesus almost seems like a regular guy
caught in the midst of things at times -- St John's has a very stoic
Jesus, a man on a mission.
Why would St John have chosen the day before P ...[text shortened]... y happened is immaterial: it is what
the story signifies that has spiritual meaning.
Nemesio
Of course it is critical for the events to actually have happened, or what exactly is the difference between Christianity and any other made up religion?
13 Apr 05
Originally posted by DarfiusThis is a lie and you know it.
There are no contradictions. If you read the Bible objectively and not LOOKING for contradictions, you would see this. Contradiction means [b]mutually exclusive, and that is not present anywhere in the Bible.[/b]
I've pointed out several which you have avoided like the plague.
Stop lying about what you call the 'Word of God,' because, if it is
inspired by the Holy Spirit, and you lie about it, then you are sinning
against the Holy Spirit and damning your soul to an eternity of hellfire.
Nemesio
13 Apr 05
Originally posted by DarfiusThanks for your opinion.
That is ridiculious, Nemesio.
Of course it is critical for the events to actually have happened, or what exactly is the difference between Christianity and any other made up religion?
If it is critical in your mind, and given that there is this explicit and
unequivocal contradiction on the day that the Crucifixion occurred, you
have just admitted that Christianity and any other religion have no
significant distinction.
Well done!
By contrast, the position I've given suffers from no such problem.
Nemesio
13 Apr 05
Originally posted by NemesioYou've pointed out several in lengthy posts that amateur Biblical scholars answered for their thesis papers. If you're interested in the Truth, I will be more than happy to oblige. If you're interested in Christianity not being true and flooding the forums with supposed contradictions that have been and are addressed in many places on the net and in books, then feel free, but don't expect me to indulge you in the endeavour.
This is a lie and you know it.
I've pointed out several which you have avoided like the plague.
Stop lying about what you call the 'Word of God,' because, if it is
inspired by the Holy Spirit, and you lie about it, then you are sinning
against the Holy Spirit and damning your soul to an eternity of hellfire.
Nemesio
13 Apr 05
Originally posted by NemesioIf you were a 1st century Jew reading the Gospels, I'd have to agree with you, but unfortunately, I believe there may be information that you aren't privy to.
Thanks for your opinion.
If it is critical in your mind, and given that there is this explicit and
unequivocal contradiction on the day that the Crucifixion occurred, you
have just admitted that Christianity and any other religion have no
significant distinction.
Well done!
By contrast, the position I've given suffers from no such problem.
Nemesio
Take your "spiritual and nothing to do with facts" Christianity to the Gnostics, or some other heretical group that enjoys the benefits but doesn't want any of that "faith" stuff.
13 Apr 05
Originally posted by DarfiusYou can lie to yourself all you want. You can call Paula Frederickson,
You've pointed out several in lengthy posts that amateur Biblical scholars answered for their thesis papers. If you're interested in the Truth, I will be more than happy to oblige. If you're interested in Christianity not being true and flooding the forums with supposed contradictions that have been and are addressed in many places on the net and in books, then feel free, but don't expect me to indulge you in the endeavour.
John Crosson, and Elaine Pagels 'amateur Biblical scholars' all you
want, but it only paints yourself as a the fool you are acting like.
I don't care if you indulge me. Your silence on the issue is a tacit
admission that you have no answers. And, furthermore, your unwilling
attitude to educate belies any sincerity behind the testifying you do.
And, most significantly, it demonstrates the extent to which you are
willing to deceive yourself into believing in something.
Faith shouldn't be predicated on deceit.
Nemesio
13 Apr 05
Darfius, you shouldn't be so hasty to pose as the peddler of Truth. Our brief discussion in the "How can a God of love send somebody to Hell" thread revealed that your understanding of the Bible is still profoundly deficient.
Since you have hinted that you haven't been a born again xtian all that long, maybe you should wait until you're "off the milk and onto the meat" before attempting to correct some one with superior knowledge of the scripture.
13 Apr 05
Originally posted by DarfiusThe Gospels were written for 1st-century Jews, Darfius. In order to
If you were a 1st century Jew reading the Gospels, I'd have to agree with you, but unfortunately, I believe there may be information that you aren't privy to.
understand them properly, one must adopt a 1st-century-Jewish
perspective!
And, the information to which I am not privied is the same as that
to which you are not privied. If you want to make up imaginary
information (like that the St Luke geneology refers to Joseph's 'legal'
parents, or whatever!), then I can make it up, too (Jesus was really
a space alien transported from another dimension. His healing ability
was really done with an intergalactic transfuser ray, not through God).
For my part, I don't like to read important documents like the Gospels
with imaginary data or preconceptions (such as 'inerrancy'😉. What
you bring to the table is unsustainable to begin with (as I have
repeatedly demonstrated), so it's hard to take you seriously.
Nemesio
13 Apr 05
Originally posted by telerionTel, both you and Nemesio are losing more and more of my respect everyday.
Darfius, you shouldn't be so hasty to pose as the peddler of Truth. Our brief discussion in the "How can a God of love send somebody to Hell" thread revealed that your understanding of the Bible is still profoundly deficient.
Since you have hinted that you haven't been a born again xtian all that long, maybe you should wait until you're "off the ...[text shortened]... onto the meat" before attempting to correct some one with superior knowledge of the scripture.
It is clear in Scripture that children do not go to Hell and those who haven't heard the Gospel aren't judged by the Gospel. I simply don't have time to debunk everyone of your outlandish and uneducated claims.
Neither you nor Nemesio have a better understanding of Scripture than I do because you do not believe in the God who wrote it. You look at it as purely a work of literature. You do not and cannot fathom the underlying motives or reasons.
13 Apr 05
Originally posted by DarfiusThe "secret decoder ring" theory strikes again!
Tel, both you and Nemesio are losing more and more of my respect everyday.
It is clear in Scripture that children do not go to Hell and those who haven't heard the Gospel aren't judged by the Gospel. I simply don't have time to debunk everyone of your outlandish and uneducated claims.
Neither you nor Nemesio have a better understanding of Scriptu ...[text shortened]... as purely a work of literature. You do not and cannot fathom the underlying motives or reasons.
13 Apr 05
Originally posted by Darfius
Tel, both you and Nemesio are losing more and more of my respect everyday.
Two words: Boo hoo.
It is clear in Scripture that children do not go to Hell and those who haven't heard the Gospel aren't judged by the Gospel. I simply don't have time to debunk everyone of your outlandish and uneducated claims.
Outlandish and uneducated? Try this one:
The Crucifixion happened on the Day of Passover.
The Crucifixion happened on the Eve of Passover.
This is completely substantiated specifically by the Gospels. Believing
that both of these statements are true, or that 'Passover' doesn't
mean what it has always meant, is outlandish and uneducated.
Neither you nor Nemesio have a better understanding of Scripture than I do because you do not believe in the God who wrote it. You look at it as purely a work of literature. You do not and cannot fathom the underlying motives or reasons.
This view is the product of arrogance and paranoia. You believe that
you understand Scripture better because it scares you to believe in the
way that I do (which is not properly summarized in your little rant).
Nemesio
14 Apr 05
Originally posted by Coletti
I believe they are inerrant in the originals, and that the contents of the originals is fairly well established. Some details are uncertain - but for all intents and purposes - we know what the originals said.
As far as I know - there are no contradictions that are important to Christian doctrine. Some apparent contradictions are easily resolved - oth ...[text shortened]... be more specific about the contradictions.
Maybe you can state your source of information.
I admit I was being lazy. I have known about the late writing of the gospels for sometime and rather than going to my bookshelf, I pulled this information of Wikipedia. However, Wikipedia is considered a rather accurate source.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospels
Oh - haven't we discussed the contradictions before? If I have some time I'll find the thread.